WASHINGTON — The day after a shooter killed 17 people at a Florida high school, Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon offered comforting words — for gun owners.

"We are committed to working with state and local leaders to help secure our schools and tackle the difficult issue of mental health," Trump said in brief remarks at the White House. "It is not enough to simply take actions that make us feel like we are making a difference. We must actually make that difference."

Translation: Your guns are safe. "That's very encouraging that he's not mounting up with the anti-Second Amendment posse," said Larry Pratt, executive director emeritus of the Gun Owners of America, an advocacy group based in Virginia. "The response from gun owners will be principally that he didn't say the kind of things Hillary Clinton would have said had she been president and the way Barack Obama reacted to other situations like this."

No modern American president has had a closer bond with gun owners than Trump, who won 62 percent of their votes in 2016, then promised the National Rifle Association in April 2017 that he would "never, ever infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

And on Thursday, against the backdrop of calls for tighter gun restrictions from Democrats, some Republicans and several students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida — where a former student gunned down 17 people on Wednesday — Trump signaled again that his focus is on the mental state of shooters, not the weapons they use to commit their crimes.

He didn't mention guns at all.

"The fact that the president didn't talk about rifles today ... that was good," said Chris Waltz, president and CEO of AR-15 Gun Owners of America, a Warner Robbins, Ga.-based company that sells semi-automatic rifles and claims a community of enthusiasts numbering more than 500,000. "He's been, so far, the most outspoken president on gun issues, as far as supporting the Second Amendment."

The aftermath of any mass shooting is an anxious time for gun-rights groups, many of which worry that sentiment on Capitol Hill or in the administration could shift in response. "We’re always concerned after a tragedy that the response will be either poor, misguided or just emotional," said Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights.

In particular, he said he was discomfited by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's response to a question from Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing Thursday.

"I will say personally, I think the gun violence — it's a tragedy what we've seen yesterday, and I'd urge Congress to look at these issues," Mnuchin said.

While Mnuchin didn't go so far as to back any particular action, the words struck Brown as "intimating gun control" and a potential waver in the administration's stance.

"Our concern is the canary in the coal mine," he said.

For years, gun control advocates — most of them Democrats — have engaged in futile and frustrating efforts to enact new measures. Now, in the wake of Thursday's massacre they are escalating their rhetoric again, perhaps in hopes of putting more public pressure on Republican lawmakers to join them.

"If you are not working today to try to fix this, to try to stop these shootings, then you're an accomplice," Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., a leading voice in favor of tightening gun laws, said Thursday.

Many gun owners believe Murphy's answer is the wrong one. Rather than focusing on how to crack down on guns, they say, the government should do more to ensure that people with mental health problems don't have access to weapons and that schools are more secure.

And though the only gun policy-related law Trump has signed so far has been a measure repealing an Obama-era rule that made it more difficult for those with mental illnesses to purchase guns, those are the topics he said he would focus on.

Some gun-rights advocates say schools are soft targets for shooters because law-abiding citizens aren't allowed to pack weapons on their grounds. In their view, elected officials should roll back laws that ban guns on campuses because they are counterproductive.

"You have to conclude these gun free zones are murder magnets," Pratt said. "Anybody legally carrying should be able to be on school property, the same as they can be in a supermarket or an automobile lot."

Trump has endorsed a repeal of the federal gun-free school zones law in the past, and it could be that he sees such action as part of his promise to increase safety at schools.

With Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress — and Democrats holding enough seats to sustain a filibuster in the Senate — it seems highly unlikely that Congress will send Trump any major change to gun laws anytime soon.

On Thursday, gun-rights advocates praised Trump's expressions of sympathy for the victims, their families and survivors of the shooting. They were reassured by what he's said in the past — and what he didn't say at the White House — about his universe of solutions for preventing the next deadly attack.

"I’m confident that the president meant what he said: that he’s not going to pursue a potential solution that’s going to infringe on our constitutional rights," said David Bozell, president of the conservative group For America. "Gun owners like myself, we want the ability to defend our families against bad guys."

_________________"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."- Denis Diderot

Well, now you are bringing up Claude Levi-Strauss and his theory of structural/functional methodology in anthropology. It's an interesting dichotomy: the researcher can go live within a culture (functionalism) and know the culture from within, but lose his awareness of timeless points by which all cultures can be compared; or, he can stand apart from the culture (structuralism), and maintain his objectivity, but perhaps be less sensitive to the nuances of the culture.

So, eds, you are a functionalist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_L%C3%A9vi-Strauss

Also a Micro-outlook and views things in terms of Small world interactions and individuals, as opposed to the Macro-outlook that views things in terms of Systems and holistic structure. Living in a culture only gives you a view of a single individual living in a culture, to base opinions on that is always going to biased based on the experience you had positive or negative.

Don't forget you have a TV and watched Breaking Bad. I have never seen the show. Maybe that's why I don't know what's going on around here?

Well, now you are bringing up Claude Levi-Strauss and his theory of structural/functional methodology in anthropology. It's an interesting dichotomy: the researcher can go live within a culture (functionalism) and know the culture from within, but lose his awareness of timeless points by which all cultures can be compared; or, he can stand apart from the culture (structuralism), and maintain his objectivity, but perhaps be less sensitive to the nuances of the culture.

So, eds, you are a functionalist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_L%C3%A9vi-Strauss

Also a Micro-outlook and views things in terms of Small world interactions and individuals, as opposed to the Macro-outlook that views things in terms of Systems and holistic structure. Living in a culture only gives you a view of a single individual living in a culture, to base opinions on that is always going to biased based on the experience you had positive or negative.

Don't forget you have a TV and watched Breaking Bad. I have never seen the show. Maybe that's why I don't know what's going on around here?

I haven't watched breaking badBut it is an interesting Plot, One that is unimaginable in Civilized places I mean Imagine a society that is So terrible that a man has to turn to crime for a medical bills

I mean the US Show I tend to watch are News, Political Commentary (Full frontal, Viceland, cyber wars etc) and Food shows

And events in the USA are often front page news here too, Australia is a globalised society so we get news/shows from all over the world Particularly the USA which since we speak the same language doesn't even need subtitles

and You Know what is going on you just selfishly want to keep your hobby as opposed to try and make it better. I think what Quill said is quite true, Your attitude towards society is like the father that kills his kids so no one can have them, you are prone to fear so you can't let anyone else live without fear so foster an Armed violent society to perpetuate a fearful divide society.

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

Don't forget you have a TV and watched Breaking Bad. I have never seen the show. Maybe that's why I don't know what's going on around here?

I haven't watched breaking badBut it is an interesting Plot, One that is unimaginable in Civilized places I mean Imagine a society that is So terrible that a man has to turn to crime for a medical bills

I mean the US Show I tend to watch are News, Political Commentary (Full frontal, Viceland, cyber wars etc) and Food shows

And events in the USA are often front page news here too, Australia is a globalised society so we get news/shows from all over the world Particularly the USA which since we speak the same language doesn't even need subtitles

and You Know what is going on you just selfishly want to keep your hobby as opposed to try and make it better. I think what Quill said is quite true, Your attitude towards society is like the father that kills his kids so no one can have them, you are prone to fear so you can't let anyone else live without fear so foster an Armed violent society to perpetuate a fearful divide society.

And you want to deny people the right to defend themselves. Who's being selfish now? I'm not asking anyone to do or not do anything, you are.

It's you being selfish, sticking your nose into other peoples business, when you should be worried about your own affairs.

Cheryl Rheamount endured abuse at the hands of her boyfriend before she shot and killed him in self-defense with a handgun she had hidden under the seat of her car, a prosecutor said Wednesday.

After a charge of voluntary manslaughter was dropped, Rheamount pleaded guilty Wednesday to carrying a concealed weapon, a gross misdemeanor.

District Judge William Kephart ordered Rheamount to serve two years of probation, undergo mental health and substance abuse evaluations, and have no contact with the family of Matthew Bernardi, 32, who died Nov. 20.

“This was a tragic event of self-defense,” Rheamount told the judge. “He kept repeating over and over that he was going to kill me. I did what I felt I had to do in order to save my own life.”

Clark County Detention Center records indicate that Rheamount, 36, was released Wednesday. She had been held at the jail since her arrest shortly after the shooting.

my god what a terrible place you live in, Yes here in a civilized nation it's definitely Murder shooting someone. there is not even a debate in this case. she was armed he wasn't, she was in the back seat pointing a gun at him, he wasn't a threat when she pulled the trigger, she doesn't even claim to have tried to tell him to pull over and let her out which Her being the only armed one he would have been likely to comply with.

And she could have left and reported to the police earlier like people do in Civilized nations

The couple had been dating since May, and Rheamount told police that she endured physical and verbal abuse from Bernardi, although she never reported it to police.

But in your gun nut insanity you think a corpse is a good thing I guess. Like I have already said you seem determine to Avoid the Sensible options

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

veya_victaous wrote:my god what a terrible place you live in, Yes here in a civilized nation it's definitely Murder shooting someone. there is not even a debate in this case. she was armed he wasn't, she was in the back seat pointing a gun at him, he wasn't a threat when she pulled the trigger, she doesn't even claim to have tried to tell him to pull over and let her out which Her being the only armed one he would have been likely to comply with.

And she could have left and reported to the police earlier like people do in Civilized nations

The couple had been dating since May, and Rheamount told police that she endured physical and verbal abuse from Bernardi, although she never reported it to police.

But in your gun nut insanity you think a corpse is a good thing I guess. Like I have already said you seem determine to Avoid the Sensible options

She could have ran him over with the car for all I care. I'm glad she's not dead and he is.

You seem to feel differently about that. Do you have issues with women?

veya_victaous wrote:my god what a terrible place you live in, Yes here in a civilized nation it's definitely Murder shooting someone. there is not even a debate in this case. she was armed he wasn't, she was in the back seat pointing a gun at him, he wasn't a threat when she pulled the trigger, she doesn't even claim to have tried to tell him to pull over and let her out which Her being the only armed one he would have been likely to comply with.

And she could have left and reported to the police earlier like people do in Civilized nations

The couple had been dating since May, and Rheamount told police that she endured physical and verbal abuse from Bernardi, although she never reported it to police.

But in your gun nut insanity you think a corpse is a good thing I guess. Like I have already said you seem determine to Avoid the Sensible options

And yes, it's terrible here. Men who beat women sometimes get killed.

I imagine you wouldn't like it at all over here. It would put a damper on your social life.

veya_victaous wrote:my god what a terrible place you live in, Yes here in a civilized nation it's definitely Murder shooting someone. there is not even a debate in this case. she was armed he wasn't, she was in the back seat pointing a gun at him, he wasn't a threat when she pulled the trigger, she doesn't even claim to have tried to tell him to pull over and let her out which Her being the only armed one he would have been likely to comply with.

And she could have left and reported to the police earlier like people do in Civilized nations

But in your gun nut insanity you think a corpse is a good thing I guess. Like I have already said you seem determine to Avoid the Sensible options

And yes, it's terrible here. Men who beat women sometimes get killed.

The operative word is 'sometimes'...and sometimes not. Who knows? Anyone can be killed with a gun around.

veya_victaous wrote:my god what a terrible place you live in, Yes here in a civilized nation it's definitely Murder shooting someone. there is not even a debate in this case. she was armed he wasn't, she was in the back seat pointing a gun at him, he wasn't a threat when she pulled the trigger, she doesn't even claim to have tried to tell him to pull over and let her out which Her being the only armed one he would have been likely to comply with.

And she could have left and reported to the police earlier like people do in Civilized nations

But in your gun nut insanity you think a corpse is a good thing I guess. Like I have already said you seem determine to Avoid the Sensible options

And yes, it's terrible here. Men who beat women sometimes get killed.

I imagine you wouldn't like it at all over here. It would put a damper on your social life.

BTW, how many criminals have been stopped by people with guns in Australia lately.

Lets have a contest. You post a story where an Aussie has used their gun to protect life or property, and I'll post one of an American doing the same.

You game?

Aussies are CIVILIZEDwe do not use firearms to protect property EVER people do not own guns for protection EVER Protection is not considered a valid reason Because Guns Don't protect shit

what do you not get, there is ZERO reason for anyone to have a gun it's just not needed we have a LOWER crime rates too. Because we have a functional criminal justice system and a pretty decent police force

And it wasn't always the way, We are a Nation that descends from convicts and was the last of the western frontier nations.IT's just you lot haven't evolved in the past 200 years to keep pace with the rest of civilization

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

BTW, how many criminals have been stopped by people with guns in Australia lately.

Lets have a contest. You post a story where an Aussie has used their gun to protect life or property, and I'll post one of an American doing the same.

You game?

Aussies are CIVILIZEDwe do not use firearms to protect property EVER people do not own guns for protection EVER Protection is not considered a valid reason Because Guns Don't protect shit

what do you not get, there is ZERO reason for anyone to have a gun it's just not needed we have a LOWER crime rates too. Because we have a functional criminal justice system and a pretty decent police force

And it wasn't always the way, We are a Nation that descends from convicts and was the last of the western frontier nations.IT's just you lot haven't evolved in the past 200 years to keep pace with the rest of civilization

Good question. But since men are almost always significantly stronger, we know what the odds are when both parties are unarmed.

And we also know of a couple of guys that seem to like the idea of women not being armed.

I'd reckon a Shelia Odds are pretty good against a gun-reliant sissy you'd definitely have been bottled upside the head before you knew what was happening

HESE are the numbers that should terrify us all.

A report just released from the Crime Statistics Agency found that in 2009 and 2010, over 3,500 rapes were reported to Victoria Police. Of those, a tiny 3% ended in a court conviction.

Even more startling, 41 police reports were made against alleged perpetrators who already had at least six prior sexual offences recorded. Nearly half (18) of those reports went nowhere. No charges, no court appearance, no conviction, nothing.

And these are the rapes that have been reported. Hundreds of thousands of women in Australia have been raped or sexually assaulted and never go to police.

Why are charges and convictions so difficult to achieve for sexual violence? That’s something Nina Funnell knows all too well.

NINA’S STORY

Nina was sexually assaulted nearly 10 years ago, by a man who held a blade to her throat in Sydney’s Hunters Hill. Despite police eventually finding DNA evidence from the crime scene, no one has ever been charged with her assault.

“When you don’t get an outcome” she says, “you feel so powerless, and so much of the trauma of sexual violence is being powerless. It shatters your belief that the world is a safe place and that justice is something you can rely on.”

Nina’s experience, traumatic as it was, became worse in her dealings with NSW police.

After she escaped her attacker and was desperately running for home, she called 000. She told them what had happened to her. She was still out on the street and had no idea where the man who attacked her was. The phone operator took her details and disconnected the call.

Terrified, and assuming the disconnection was an accident, she called them back. Again, still alone on a dark street, with a man who had held a blade to her throat still somewhere in the vicinity, they took her details and hung up.

BTW, how many criminals have been stopped by people with guns in Australia lately.

Lets have a contest. You post a story where an Aussie has used their gun to protect life or property, and I'll post one of an American doing the same.

You game?

Aussies are CIVILIZEDwe do not use firearms to protect property EVER people do not own guns for protection EVER Protection is not considered a valid reason Because Guns Don't protect shit

what do you not get, there is ZERO reason for anyone to have a gun it's just not needed we have a LOWER crime rates too. Because we have a functional criminal justice system and a pretty decent police force

And it wasn't always the way, We are a Nation that descends from convicts and was the last of the western frontier nations.IT's just you lot haven't evolved in the past 200 years to keep pace with the rest of civilization

Hmmmm.....

So no murder or rape there eh?

with all your guns have you got zero Crime?

No wait, with all your guns you have significantly more crime

SO again proves that SAFER without guns, since less murder and rape AND you don't have to worry about all the accidental guns deaths that occur every day in the USA.

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?